Again, it's a useful service done right. If monetization leads to better quality control and controls then I won't be criticizing that move. The ones who start to hate you for asking for a payment to make the service better serves to identify the ones you do not want or need. thus improving quality almost immediately.
Not that it always works out this way, but monetization leads to a true business. There are insurance matters, bondability, risk, etc. involved in any business, especially something of said nature.
but the both threads were pretty active here: so kudos!
+1 to that because a sizable number of hosts don't list it in their policies and the ones who don't list it also tend to be the ones who abuse it the most by posting false reports (it's not really that surprising that these hosts don't list it since many of these hosts have amateurish TOS and privacy policies that would get thrown out of most courts...some of them would even get thrown out of a kangaroo court)
One big difference between the professional credit bureaus (besides the obvious ones of outside auditing, adherence to government regulations, objective accurate reports as opposed to FR's subjective often false reports, ownership by a registered business, etc) and the amateur hour that is FR is that underage children who aren't old enough to legally sign a contract aren't submitting consumer reports to Experian, TransUnion, etc while FraudRecord welcomes children (as well as known skids) with open arms..
Monetizing the service would address the lack of resources by allowing him to hire staff, create automation, etc. If you are going to blame a problem of non disclosure on the providers using the service, you need to find a way to address that problem. Or we can just continue to ignore it and any other problem and not suggest any solutions.
: I think we are talking about two different things: I'm talking about the current setup, your idea was about after/when harzem continued on the way of monetizing so he would earn some sort of revenue to have more hands ..
I am going to come around and bash your skull in until you're dead for using that analogy.
Good example: last year the state of Mississippi sued the largest credit reporting agency Experian over inaccurate consumer data in its database.
If you're maintaining a database of consumer information you do have a responsibility as the service provider to have controls in place to ensure that the information submitted to your service and stored in your database isn't riddled with false information and inaccuracies. Based on some of the absolute shit I've seen in the FR database (example: complaints by kiddie hosts that state "criminal intent" because a customer opened multiple tickets after their tickets were auto-closed without a reply, etc) , FR doesn't have adequate controls in place to ensure the accuracy of the information in its database, and the whiny replies of "it would take too much time to do that", "it would cost too much money to do that" are not an excuse when you're running a consumer reporting service. If you don't have the resources to implement the right controls from Day 1 then you shouldn't be running a consumer reporting service.
The difference here though is that he states it as a requirement for using the service, but does not enforce or verify it. The hammer analogy isn't at all the same thing. You don't have to agree you won't use a hammer on a person when you buy it or agree to use it.@MattKC:
My problem is with the principal: if you are a hammer vendor you cant make sure than ppl who buy your tool wont use it do bad things with it... ...and its not your responsibility as a service provider.
But to be cooperative
The ToS inclusion is literally a verbatim matchable quote and tying that to a form that collect the company's ToS URL and fires off a HTTP GET and parses for the content exist. Very simple. Literally a few hours of work tops.
^--- that FraudRecord Entry --- in there because? Revenge submission? Pissed support tech/owner? Or just because they can? Oh that is MTWISCOOL submitting. Talk about an issue on submitter and all. Yikes. Would someone sue FraudRecord, MTW, or his legal guardians?
Cheapskates will use it, if it costs low end money. Like I said earlier - $1-3 a month. Sell it flat annual $12-24 a year. Ideally any loss of use due to cost barrier is offset by having high caliber of well behaved paying customers who submit what is rightly defined and encompassed within the spirit of FRAUD. Thus reducing the heap of steaming dung too many FR entries appear to be. Also reducing public scrutiny ideally.
Your post made me laugh because I am oh too familiar with the sad situation, having seen these screwball customers in a number of shops.
If they're only making $0.37 per client imagine how mad they would be when a single client costs them $25 in 1 day. There's a huge difference between returning an item to a store (costs the store $0.00) and a client filing a chargeback with their credit card company/bank. I'm just pointing out that it's not exactly comparing apples to apples more like apples to a banana peel with a bill attached to it telling the banana salesman that he owes $25 for that banana his client already ate AND the client got their money back while comfortably digesting the banana.
